Police Warn Of Sexual Assaults Near UC Campus

[I'm going to say that these kind of things are probably "normal" for a university campus environment or for cities in general. But this is such a scary thing]

BERKELEY -- Police have issued a warning for young women in Berkeley after two UC students were victimized by a brazen rapist in recent weeks.Neighborhoods around the UC campus are relatively quiet these days; school hasn't started yet and most students are relishing their last few days of summer.But police want women to be on alert for a rapist who has struck twice in the past month. Both of the rapist's victims were UC students.Students KTVU spoke with Wednesday hadn't heard about the attacks, but said the alert issued by police has them concerned"That's pretty scary! It's such a college town; you feel like you're safe," said one student.The first attack occurred on July 6th at around 3 p.m. On the south side of the campus in the 2500 block of Hillegass Avenue. The second assault took place on August 2nd at approximately 6 p.m. in the evening several blocks away on the 2100 block of Haste Street.Police say both times the attacker entered a multi-unit apartment building and found his victim in the lobby. Investigators say the man was not armed and that the rapes happened in or around the common area near the entrance."It appears the way he works, is to act fast. The attack happens quite quickly," explained Berkeley Police Sgt. Mary Cusmiss.The victims told police the rapist was an African-American male in his late 20s with a dark complexion. They said he is between five-eight and six feet tall with a thin build, a clean appearance and shoulder-length dreadlocks or twists.Berkeley police are working on a sketch and hope to release it to the public in the coming days.Police are warning all women -- not just those living in the UC campus area of Berkeley -- to be aware at all times.Berkeley police say so-called "stranger rapes" are far rarer than "acquaintance rape" which is more prevalent on or near college campuses.

Bulatlat Article about "GABnet 3"

Published on Bulatlat (http://www.bulatlat.com)

Woman Activist Held, Two Others in Watchlist

BY DABET CASTAÑEDA
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Bulatlat
Vol. VII, No. 27, August 12-18, 2007

Balikbayan Dr. Annalisa Vicente Enrile was on her way back to the U.S. on Aug. 5 after a month’s stay in the Philippines. However, as she proceeded to the Immigration booth to have her passport exit-stamped, she was told that she could not get on the plane because she was on the “watchlist.”

Enrile is the chairperson of GABRIELA Network USA (GABNet), a U.S.-based women’s group affiliated with the militant women’s group GABRIELA and the progressive partylist group Gabriela Women’s Party (GWP). She is also a professor at the University of Southern California.

In a press conference Aug. 11in Quezon City, Enrile said she believes she is being held because of her involvement with GABRIELA and for being part of a team that went to the country to probe the human rights record of the Macapagal-Arroyo administration.

“I’m being held hostage,” Enrile told the media. “I cannot go back to my work and my family.”

The run-around

After being told that she could not proceed to board her flight, Enrile said she was “sent and shuffled from one department to another.”

At the Immigration, she was told to get clearance from the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID).

On Aug. 6 at the BID, Enrile was told to file an Affidavit of Denial.

On Aug. 7, the BID told Enrile to get clearance from the Department of Justice (DoJ). At the DoJ, she was told to get another clearance from the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA). But at the NICA, she was directed to return to the BID.

On Aug. 8 at the BID, Enrile was redirected to the DoJ.

Enrile then sought the assistance of the Chief of American Citizens Service (CACS) at the U.S. Embassy who committed to help her.

The CACS gave the same message to American human rights activist and GABNet International Relations Officer Judith Mirkinson who went with Enrile at the embassy. Enrile, Mirkinson and renowned international journalist Ninotchka Rosca are said to have been in the government’s watchlist.

Intimidation tactic

Rosca said the watchlist is an “intimidation tactic” by the Philippine government against “all overseas Filipinos who continue to love and fight for this country.”

“I am exceedingly irritated with the watchlist which has infringed into my private time with my family,” Rosca said. Rosca said she is here to attend the Women’s International Solidarity Affair in the Philippines which was held from July 30 to August 5, 2007, to launch her latest book and to visit her 98-year old mother.

No charges

Meanwhile, GWP Rep. Liza Maza said the hold order against the three women activists is a serious matter which can be a precedent to gauge the effectivity of the Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA 2007), the newly passed anti-terror law.

“Before the HSA, nobody cannot be held without charges,” Maza explained. But with the HSA, Maza said anybody can be held on mere suspicion. “This makes this incident dangerous,” she added.

“This is pure political harassment undermining GABRIELA’s international work,” the partylist representative said. GWP, which was able to land two seats in the House of Representatives, topped the partylist votes of absentee voter’s in the 2007 mid-term elections.

Rosca and Mirkinson are scheduled to leave the country on Aug. 14. “We hope not to be held at the airport and we’ll make sure Dr. Enrile is coming with us,” Rosca said. Bulatlat

---

Source URL:
http://www.bulatlat.com/2007/08/woman-activist-held-two-others-watchlist

GABnet 3

*Open Statement from the GABNet 3 *

*August 12, 2007*


On August 5, 2007, agents of the Philippine government prevented one of us
from boarding her return flight to the United States. The reason given was
that she was on a nebulous "watchlist" and needed clearance from various and
diverse Philippine government agencies. We would learn, subsequently, that
two of the GABNet members visiting the Philippines – International Relations
Officer Judith Mirkinson and International Spokesperson of the GABRIELA
Purple Rose Campaign Against Sex Trafficking of Filipinas Ninotchka Rosca --
were also on the watchlist, which contained over 500 names.


Considering the surrealistic situation we find ourselves in, where no one
seems to be able to explain the nature of this "watchlist," the basis for
being included in the "watchlist," and what the process is for getting
"cleared" and off the list, even of who is actually responsible for the
list, we would not be surprised if the list included imaginary men and
women.


We would probably have looked at this experience as some kind of Harry
Potter adventure, were it not for the perilous state of human rights in the
Philippines, where some 90 women activists, organizers and leaders have been
assassinated out of a total of nearly a thousand murdered, and where the
second highest number of writers and media people have been killed in the
world today. We are constrained to view with deep alarm the impunity with
which the Philippine government has violated Dr. Enrile's civil and human
rights, and the naked shamelessness with which it threatens to violate the
civil and human rights of Ms. Mirkinson and Ms. Rosca, as well as various
and diverse people on the so-called "watchlist," "blacklist" and "holdlist."



We are absolutely sure we are under attack because of our work as members of
the US-Philippine women's solidarity mass organization GABRIELA Network
which has consistently upheld militant sisterhood with GABRIELA Philippines
for 18 years and with the Gabriela Women's Party since the latter's
formation. We are absolutely certain that this violation of our civil and
political rights is occasioned by our work in organizing women and women of
Philippine ancestry; by our decade-long work against the traffic of
Filipinas; and by our commitment to the securing of basic rights and the
expansion of freedoms for all women, especially the women of the
Philippines, as well as for the nation as a whole.


Because of this track record, certain personalities in the Philippine
government have chosen to express their hatred of women and of freedom by
violating and seeking to violate our human rights. We say to them, as well
as pledge to those who support and continue to support us, that harassment
and intimidation will fail. For far too long have working women been
disempowered, dispossessed and reified. Not even by a single second will
intimidation, harassment and human rights violations cause us to cease our
work on behalf of the emancipation of womankind.



Governments of countries like the Philippines which survive on selling women
in the international labor and sex trade markets absolutely hate and wish to
destroy women like us, who insist on respect, dignity and equality for
womankind. Governments of countries like the Philippines which consider
women to be a disposable and surplus population absolutely hate and wish to
destroy women like us who insist on an equal share of social, political and
economic power for womankind. The violation of our rights as women and as
human beings is therefore simply a small part of a general state of
disrespect for human rights and women's rights prevalent in countries under
governments like that of the Philippines.


We are deeply moved that our particular case has found resonance among
peoples and organizations the world over. We thank GABRIELA Philippines,
Gabriela Women's Party and most of all, our heart-sisters in GABRIELA
Network for the support, outrage and clamor on our behalf. We thank ANSWER,
friends in the National Lawyers Guild, the National Alliance of Philippine
Women in Canada, Justice for Filipino-American Veterans, BAYAN Philippines,
Pacific-Asian and North American Asian Women in Theology and Ministry, and
others too numerous to name, for their support. Our most profound gratitude
goes to individuals and organizations who approached this issue with respect
for our persons, our situation and our work.


We wish to assure everyone we will continue to seek redress of our grievance
and to assert our civil, political, human and women's rights. --###


Signed:


Annalisa Enrile

National Chairperson

GABRIELA Network


Ninotchka Rosca

International Spokesperon

GABRIELA Purple Rose Campaign


Judith Mirkinson

International Relations

GABRIELA Network

I'm shocked.

October 16, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

Why Aren’t We Shocked?
By BOB HERBERT

“Who needs a brain when you have these?”

— message on an Abercrombie & Fitch T-shirt for young women

In the recent shootings at an Amish schoolhouse in rural Pennsylvania and a large public high school in Colorado, the killers went out of their way to separate the girls from the boys, and then deliberately attacked only the girls.

Ten girls were shot and five killed at the Amish school. One girl was killed and a number of others were molested in the Colorado attack.

In the widespread coverage that followed these crimes, very little was made of the fact that only girls were targeted. Imagine if a gunman had gone into a school, separated the kids up on the basis of race or religion, and then shot only the black kids. Or only the white kids. Or only the Jews.

There would have been thunderous outrage. The country would have first recoiled in horror, and then mobilized in an effort to eradicate that kind of murderous bigotry. There would have been calls for action and reflection. And the attack would have been seen for what it really was: a hate crime.

None of that occurred because these were just girls, and we have become so accustomed to living in a society saturated with misogyny that violence against females is more or less to be expected. Stories about the rape, murder and mutilation of women and girls are staples of the news, as familiar to us as weather forecasts. The startling aspect of the Pennsylvania attack was that this terrible thing happened at a school in Amish country, not that it happened to girls.

The disrespectful, degrading, contemptuous treatment of women is so pervasive and so mainstream that it has just about lost its ability to shock. Guys at sporting events and other public venues have shown no qualms about raising an insistent chant to nearby women to show their breasts. An ad for a major long-distance telephone carrier shows three apparently naked women holding a billing statement from a competitor. The text asks, “When was the last time you got screwed?”

An ad for Clinique moisturizing lotion shows a woman’s face with the lotion spattered across it to simulate the climactic shot of a porn video.

We have a problem. Staggering amounts of violence are unleashed on women every day, and there is no escaping the fact that in the most sensational stories, large segments of the population are titillated by that violence. We’ve been watching the sexualized image of the murdered 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey for 10 years. JonBenet is dead. Her mother is dead. And we’re still watching the video of this poor child prancing in lipstick and high heels.

What have we learned since then? That there’s big money to be made from thongs, spandex tops and sexy makeovers for little girls. In a misogynistic culture, it’s never too early to drill into the minds of girls that what really matters is their appearance and their ability to please men sexually.

A girl or woman is sexually assaulted every couple of minutes or so in the U.S. The number of seriously battered wives and girlfriends is far beyond the ability of any agency to count. We’re all implicated in this carnage because the relentless violence against women and girls is linked at its core to the wider society’s casual willingness to dehumanize women and girls, to see them first and foremost as sexual vessels — objects — and never, ever as the equals of men.

“Once you dehumanize somebody, everything is possible,” said Taina Bien-Aimé, executive director of the women’s advocacy group Equality Now.

That was never clearer than in some of the extreme forms of pornography that have spread like nuclear waste across mainstream America. Forget the embarrassed, inhibited raincoat crowd of the old days. Now Mr. Solid Citizen can come home, log on to this $7 billion mega-industry and get his kicks watching real women being beaten and sexually assaulted on Web sites with names like “Ravished Bride” and “Rough Sex — Where Whores Get Owned.”

Then, of course, there’s gangsta rap, and the video games where the players themselves get to maul and molest women, the rise of pimp culture (the Academy Award-winning song this year was “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp”), and on and on.

You’re deluded if you think this is all about fun and games. It’s all part of a devastating continuum of misogyny that at its farthest extreme touches down in places like the one-room Amish schoolhouse in normally quiet Nickel Mines, Pa.

[source: NY Times]

An Open Letter to Apl.de.Ap, Patricio Ginelsa/KidHeroes, and Xylophone Films, re: the Bebot Video

[please comment and/or forward widely]

To Apl.de.Ap, Patricio Ginelsa/KidHeroes, and Xylophone Films:

We, the undersigned, would like to register our deep disappointment at the
portrayal of Filipinas and other women in the new music videos for the Black
Eyed Peas' song, "Bebot." We want to make it clear that we appreciate your
efforts to bring Filipina/o Americans into the mainstream and applaud your
support of the Little Manila of Stockton. However, as Filipina/o and
Filipina/o American artists, academics, and community activists, we are
utterly dismayed by the portrayal of hypersexualized Filipina "hoochie-mama"
dancers, specifically in the Generation 2 version, the type of
representation of women so unfortunately prevalent in today's hip-hop and
rap music videos. The depiction of the 1930s "dime dancers" was also cast
in an unproblematized light, as these women seem to exist solely for the
sexual pleasure of the manongs.

In general, we value Apl.de.Ap's willingness to be so openly and richly
Filipino, especially when there are other Filipina/o Americans in positions
of visibility who do not do the same, and we appreciate the work that he has
done with the folks at Xylophone Films; we like their previous video for
"The Apl Song," and we even like the fact that the Generation 1 version of
"Bebot" attempts to provide a "history lesson" about some Filipino men in
the 1930s. However, the Generation 2 version truly misses the mark on
accurate Filipina/o representation, for the following reasons:

1) The video uses three very limited stereotypes of Filipina women: the
virgin, the whore, and the shrill mother. We find a double standard in the
depiction of the virgin and whore figures, both of which are highly
sexualized. Amidst the crowd of midriff-baring, skinny, light-skinned,
peroxided Pinays ­ some practically falling out of their halter tops ­ there
is the little sister played by Jasmine Trias, from whom big brother Apl is
constantly fending off Pinoy "playas." The overprotectiveness is strange
considering his idealization of the bebot or "hot chick." The mother
character was also particularly troublesome, but for very different reasons
She seems to play a dehumanized figure, the perpetual foreigner with her
exaggerated accent, but on top of that, she is robbed of her femininity in
her embarrassingly indelicate treatment of her son and his friends. She is
not like a tough or strong mother, but almost like a coarse asexual mother,
and it is telling that she is the only female character in the video with a
full figure.

2) We feel that these problematic female representations might have to do
with the use of the word "Bebot." We are of course not advocating that Apl
change the title of his song, yet we are confused about why a song that has
to do with pride in his ethnic/national identity would be titled "Bebot," a
word that suggests male ownership of the sexualized woman ­ the "hot chick."
What does Filipino pride have to do with bebots? The song seems to be about
immigrant experience yet the chorus says "ikaw ang aking bebot" (you are my
hot chick). It is actually very disturbing that one's ethnic/national
identity is determined by one's ownership of women. This system not only
turns women into mere symbols but it also excludes women from feeling the
same kind of ethnic/national identity. It does not bring down just
Filipinas; it brings down all women.

3) Given the unfortunate connection made in this video between Filipino
pride and the sexualized female body both lyrically and visually, we can't
help but conclude that the video was created strictly for a heterosexual
man's pleasure. This straight, masculinist perspective is the link that we
find between the Generation 1 and Generation 2 videos. The fact that the
Pinoy men are surrounded by "hot chicks" both then and now makes this link
plain. Yet such a portrayal not only obscures the "real" message about the
Little Manila Foundation; it also reduces Pinoy men's hopes, dreams, and
motivations to a single-minded pursuit of sex.

We do understand that Filipino America faces a persistent problem of
invisibility in this country. Moreover, as the song is all in Tagalog (a
fact that we love, by the way), you face an uphill battle in getting the
song and music video(s) into mainstream circulation. However, remedying the
invisibility of Filipina/os in the United States should not come at the cost
of the dignity and self-respect of at least half the population of Filipino
America. Before deciding to write this letter, we felt an incredible amount
of ambivalence about speaking out on this issue because, on the one hand, we
recognized that this song and video are a milestone for Filipina/os in
mainstream media and American pop culture, but on the other hand, we were
deeply disturbed by the images of women the video propagates.

In the end we decided that we could not remain silent while seeing image
after image of Pinays portrayed as hypersexual beings or as shrill,
dehumanized, asexual mother-figures who embarrass their children with their
overblown accents and coarseness. The Filipino American community is made up
of women with Filipino pride as well, yet there is little room in these
videos for us to share this voice and this commitment; instead, the message
we get is that we are expected to stand aside and allow ourselves to be
exploited for our sexuality while the men go about making their nationalist
statements.

While this may sound quite harsh, we believe it is necessary to point out
that such depictions make it seem as if you are selling out Filipina women
for the sake of gaining mainstream popularity within the United States.
Given the already horrific representations of Filipinas all over the world
as willing prostitutes, exotic dancers, or domestic servants who are
available for sex with their employers, the representation of Pinays in
these particular videos can only feed into such stereotypes. We also find
it puzzling, given your apparent commitment to preserving the history and
dignity of Filipina/os in the United States, because we assume that you also
consider such stereotypes offensive to Filipino men as well as women.

Again, we want to reiterate our appreciation for the positive aspects of
these videos ­ the history lesson of the 1936 version, the commitment to
community, and the effort to foster a larger awareness of Filipino America
in the mainstream ­ but we ask for your honest attempt to offer more
full-spectrum representations of both Filipino men and Filipina women, now
and in the future. We would not be writing this letter to you if we did not
believe you could make it happen.

Respectfully,

Lucy Burns
Assistant Professor
Asian American Studies / World Arts and Cultures, UCLA

Fritzie De Mata
Independent scholar

Diana Halog
Undergraduate
UC Berkeley

Luisa A. Igloria
Associate Professor
Creative Writing Program
& Department of English
Old Dominion University

Veronica Montes
Writer

Aimee Nezhukumatathil
Assistant Professor
English, State University of New York--Fredonia

Gladys Nubla
Doctoral student
English, UC Berkeley

Barbara Jane Reyes
Poet and author

Joanne L. Rondilla
Doctoral candidate
Ethnic Studies, UC Berkeley

Rolando B. Tolentino
Visiting Fellow, National University of Singapore
Associate Professor, University of the Philippines Film Institute

Benito Vergara
Asian American Studies / Anthropology, San Francisco State University

Women of Color portrayal in the media

[another article emailed to my attention. It raises interesting questions of power, the audience, authenticity and stereotyping]


An Image Popular in Films Raises Some Eyebrows in Ads

Portrayals of black women in a current Universal Studios ad.

By JEREMY W. PETERS

Published: August 1, 2006

At 200 pounds plus — most of that pure attitude — she is hard to miss.

Her onscreen presence takes on many variations, but she is easily recognizable by a few defining traits. Other than her size, she is almost always black. She typically finds herself in an exchange that is either confrontational or embarrassing. And her best line is often little more than a sassy “Mmmm hmmm.”

This caricature, playing on stereotypes of heavy black women as boisterous and sometimes aggressive, has been showing up for some time in stand-up comedy routines and in movies like “Big Momma’s House’’ and “Diary of a Mad Black Woman.’’ Often, the pieces are produced by directors and writers who are black themselves.

With black creators giving more acceptability to the image, it is now starting to appear more often in television commercials as well. Most recently some variation of this character has appeared in commercials for Dairy Queen, Universal Studios and Captain Morgan rum.

But despite the popularity of such characters among blacks, the use of the image of big black women as the target of so many jokes is troublesome to some marketers and media scholars.

“It is perpetuating a stereotype that black females are strong, aggressive, controlling people,’’ said Tommy E. Whittler, a marketing professor at DePaul University. “I don’t think you want to do that.’’

To be sure, sassy overweight black women appear to represent only a small fraction of the African-American actresses who appear in commercials. Marketers have made strides in recent years toward making advertisements with a more diverse cast of characters.

Blacks regularly appear in commercials selling products as diverse as toothpaste, credit cards and erectile dysfunction medication. Indeed, according to several academic studies, over the last 15 years the number of blacks appearing in commercials has been roughly proportional to their share of the American population, about 14 percent.

“Over the years it’s evolved,’’ said Fay Ferguson, co-chief executive of Burrell Communications, an advertising agency that specializes in marketing toward black consumers. “We’ve come a long way in how we see black women in advertising.’’

Stereotypical portrayals of blacks in commercials have drawn criticism from civil rights groups for decades. Some of the earliest and most iconic examples of blacks in advertising — Rastus the Cream of Wheat chef, Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben — showed blacks in subservient roles that recalled the days of slavery.

Paul Hosefros/The New York Times
Aunt Jemima label circa 1975.

Those images have been toned down over the years (Aunt Jemima’s red bandanna, for example, was replaced with pearl earrings and a lace collar in 1989) and are no longer as overtly stereotypical as they once were. And now there are many examples of blacks presented in middle-class settings and engaged in mainstream activities.

To some, the freer use of overweight black women in comic situations suggests a welcome change that reflects a broader acceptability of blacks in the media. But others find the recurring use of the image a return to a disturbing past.

And some say these images may serve to exacerbate misunderstanding between whites and blacks.

“Not only are we being given images of who we are supposed to be, but others are also formulating their images of us based on that,” said Marilyn Kern Foxworth, an author and marketing expert who studies how blacks are portrayed in advertising. “People have already determined who we are and how we’re going to react in certain situations.”

The heavy black female makes one of her latest appearances in a commercial for the Dairy Queen Blizzard. In the spot, a man boarding an airplane sets his ice cream shake down so he can load his bag into an overhead compartment. As he reaches up, another passenger on the plane starts eating the Blizzard. Seeing this, the first man lets go of his bag so he can reclaim his Blizzard and inadvertently drops his luggage on another passenger’s head.

That unlucky passenger happens to be an overweight black woman who lets out an irritated gasp that reminds all the passengers around her who not to mess with.

Rick Cusato, executive vice president for Grey Worldwide, the firm that wrote the campaign for Dairy Queen, said the script was not written with a black actress in mind.

“We basically cast the funniest person,” he said. “We didn’t specifically cast for a black woman. We said, ‘Wow, she’s really funny.’ And she happened to be black.”

Another new Dairy Queen commercial features a similar character — played by the same actress — working as an airport security screener. When a man tries to walk through a metal detector eating a Dairy Queen burger, her eyes dart disapprovingly downward at him. Then she barks, “Uh, uh. Get on!” directing him to walk through again.

An actress in a Dairy Queen commercial reacts negatively after a piece of luggage falls on her.

Michael Keller, Dairy Queen’s chief brand officer, said the company considered actors of all sizes and races before making a decision. “We looked at male body builders, really big tall women. We looked at just about everybody we could,” he said. “She projected an image that was everything we wanted it to be. This is just a strong woman being herself.” He added that the company had not received any complaints about the ads being racially insensitive. But to some these images are troubling.

“It’s not an accident that she’s African-American and heavy,” said Howard Buford, founder and chief executive of Prime Access, an advertising agency that creates commercials marketed toward minority audiences. “There’s certainly a long heritage of large African-American women who are kind of sassy and feisty and humorously angry. There’s a sense that this whole value system is O.K. again.”

Large black actresses have had recurring roles in commercials over the years, and often are cast in roles where their aggressiveness is a defining trait. The heavy black spokeswoman for Pine Sol was one of the first to embrace the role. Her aggression was aimed at household dirt, however, not people. In a recent commercial for Captain Morgan rum, a large black woman berates her man for playing dominoes and making her late.

In one recent Twix commercial, a full-figured black woman asks her boyfriend if her pants make her rear end look big. As the camera focuses on her plump backside (exaggerated by the camera for effect), the man stuffs his face with a Twix bar and mumbles an indecipherable answer.

Pleased with his response, the woman walks away. She is not shown being aggressive or loud, but the commercial leaves the impression that if the man had given the wrong answer, she might have erupted.

A series of Universal Studios commercials star a heavy black woman who is accompanying her children on a Jurassic Park ride. Frightened by the ride, she roars and buries the heads of her two young children in her bosom.

Black advertising executives have noticed the stereotype.

“There’s an image out there of black women being boisterous, overbearing, controlling and extremely aggressive in their behavior,” said Carol H. Williams, who runs her own advertising firm in Oakland, Calif., that specializes in marketing toward blacks. “I really don’t know why that stereotype is laughed at.”

Some have trouble with the new commercial images in part because they are being created by white writers.

“There are images of African-Americans created for white people by white people and there are images of African-Americans created for African-Americans,’’ Mr. Buford said. “And there’s a big difference.”

The lack of diversity on Madison Avenue has been a long-standing issue. In fact, the New York City Commission on Human Rights is investigating the hiring practices of advertising agencies in the city and is looking at how they have approached employing blacks.

Jannette L. Dates, dean of the communications school at Howard University, said that while whites and blacks could watch the same portrayal of a large black woman on television and laugh, they are laughing for different reasons.

Some whites, Ms. Dates said, may laugh thinking, “Wow, she’s so ridiculous. My people aren’t like that.” She added: “They wouldn’t consciously feel that way. But there is something going on subconsciously because that’s what advertising is all about. They’re trying to tap into some feeling, some emotion, some psychological hang-up.”

Blacks, meanwhile, might laugh because they can identify with the character, Ms. Dates said. “It’s for both the people who want to snicker and say, ‘See, that’s how they are.’ And for people to say, ‘There’s one of us.’ ”

Orlando Patterson, a sociology professor at Harvard, amplified that point. “To the black audience, this may be, ‘You do your thing, sister,’ ” Professor Patterson said. “The white audience is laughing with her. Then they go back to reality, and they laugh at her.”

But Liz Gumbinner, a creative director at David and Goliath, the agency that developed the Universal campaign, said the broad appeal of the commercials was proof they were not insensitively playing on racial stereotypes.

Noting that a black woman in a recent David and Goliath focus group spoke up about how much she liked the Universal ads, Ms. Gumbinner said: “I wonder if sometimes when you have somebody that is less conventional, they become the most memorable. We use a lot of bald men, and it’s not like we have it out for bald men.”

Ms. Gumbinner and Mr. Cusato of Grey Advertising, however, said no black writers were involved in either of their campaigns.

As is typically the case with racial stereotypes, who is laughing and why is complex and potentially inflammatory. Black actors and comedians have profited handsomely from creating bumptious female characters on TV and in movies, raising the issue of whether they, too, are perpetuating the stereotypes that many find offensive.

Tyler Perry, the filmmaker and actor, created a series of plays and movies, including the huge hit “Diary of a Mad Black Woman,” in which the main character Mable (Madea) Simmons is a no-nonsense overweight matriarch. Mo’Nique, a full-figured comedian, has built a routine on being outlandish, brash and, at times, downright crude.

Mr. Buford, of Prime Access, said part of what makes the comedy of Mr. Perry and Mo’Nique acceptable is that it is written from a personal experience common to many blacks.

“Authenticity makes a lot of difference,” he said. “It’s authenticity born of having lived that life versus having been cast in that role.”

The Truth About Cats & Dogs Part Deux

Ok, well I realize my last post wasn't exactly comprised of fully formed thoughts. More like a blog out of frustration and exasperation. So I'll try to be more coherent this time. Spoilers abound of the movie.

First off, I was exasperated at the idea of beauty and dating. Dating, I honestly have very little experience in this, but it seems to me some sort of human form of the "mating game" apparent in nature. It seems like confidence and power factor largely in this. Dating is interesting because it is a site where gender roles, stereotypes, and superficial factors intersect. I'm talking about those initial 30 seconds-10 minutes of meeting someone. Basically, you are who you present yourself to be. You can display success and cleanliness through clothing, manners and personality through the way you talk, beauty through looks, etc. Attraction is that fleeting spark of je nes ais quoi. And this can all be based on beauty (which is all comprised of factors like race, percieved gender, perceived fitness, etc).

I can understand that percieved beauty is some sort of harkening back to "animal days" where beauty can be a sign of success and thus ensuring most healthy and most ready to survive offspring. But human society also adds that one pivotal difference that seperates "us humans from the animals"- that of thought and speech. And that's where it gets messy. Confidence (or lack of) can now play a part.

So I go back to my previous thoughts on the Truth about Cats and Dogs. Inherit in the dating game is also the goals of the players. Considering my experience and views I'm going to consider heterosexual relations (I don't know how far this relates to lgbq sexualities). And then comes the society created questions for masculinity and femininty. Do males just want sex? Do females want "love" (relationships, family, soul connections, whatever you define it as)? Does the male goals of sexual relations translate into this search for a desirable woman? Does desirable have to equate with beauty? And since women want "love" do they desire to be loved by man (thus seeking his approval)? I could go all Judith Butler or Simone de Beauvoir here- but for the sake of simplicity I won't go into male patriarchy for the moment. But I will mention that society has created certain roles for men and women and for the most part I've noticed that these roles still exist (because the power structure makes it so).

In a sense, I feel like this desirable and seeking of male approval somehow translates into confidence. Some women gain confidence by feeling attractive. Sexual power as the only venue of power perhaps (because the power structure has made it so)? Some women have abilities and talents that are not defined by looks alone. Thus we have the situation of Abby and Noelle in The Truth About Cats and Dogs. Abby is the smart and so-so woman and Noelle is the beautiful and dumb woman. Masculine and feminine stereotypes (which are realities too) abound. And so I wonder does low self esteem come from lack of appreciation as a sexual object? I'm using "sexual object" and "attraction" interchangibly because I think attraction is based largely on sex. There are other factors involved in attraction, but we'll stick with this definition for now.

Abby's actions are an extreme form of the lengths women go to be considered beautiful. Women obsessively diet, have eating disorders, use plastic surgery, and even come up with 3 hour routines just to put their "face" on. I remember a part where a person sold Abby beauty products after makng her feel bad about herself. Abby succumbs to society's pressures so much she imagines herself a tall leggy blonde. She goes so far as to create an alternate Abby and manages to get her neighbor involved in it too. We all can't go find someone beautiful to be us- so women do the next best thing- plastic surgery. And at what lengths do women go to keep themselves attractive? Boob jobs, nose jobs, liposuction- how far is too far to be beautiful? Not far enough for some people. Abby feels like she has to play this game to be desirable to men. Even with her intelligence, kindness, understand, and humor she is not enough because she is not beautiful. Nor is she willing to change her personality for a man (such as when women raise their voices an octave or play the dumb girl game).

Noelle- I realize now (after this being pointed out by a friend)- also has low self esteem. She doesn't even notice when a bicyclist nearly crashes in the street and other such attentions. Has she taken it for granted? Noelle can't eat food. She has bad relationships with men who treat her poorly. And she wants validation as a person. She wants to be considered smart instead of just sexy. Abby actually (through the magic of Hollywood and makeup and I'm guessing they used bad lighting to make her look uglier earlier in the film) becomes prettier when she becomes more comfortable with herself.

In the end, its a hollywood movie (or a movie tailored for an audience created by Hollywood). (Spoiler) The girl and the guy get together. Noelle actually doesn't want male approval as much as she wants female approval-Abby's approval. All in all I like The Truth About Cats & Dogs- it's one of my favorite movies and I'm glad that 2-3 years later after viewing it for the first time I can appreciate it more. I like how the man is not "typically masculine". Brownie points for reading Camera Lucida by Roland Barthes and giving Abby/Noelle Simone de Beauvoire's Letters to Jean Paul Sartre (which I have added to my library of books I want in my life).

But questions (in addition the ones posed previously): What is validation? What is self confidence based on? What do you base your own self-confidence on? How much are you willing to sacrifice (your wit, your strength) to be attractive to someone? And why does it seem that women have to sacrifice more than men do? To be fair- maybe men do suffer too, but that's also a reflection of gender roles that they can't be emotional enough to mention their feelings. I know not everyone is like this, but definitely the power structure is still defining these roles as such and I notice them through everyday life.

The Truth About Cats & Dogs

Esoteric Personal Note

Yes, I don't make too many of these (this being public and all). I'm just wondering if it's normal not to have any romantic interest in a real (i.e. not unattainable, not gay, not an actor, celebrity, etc) person in such a long time. And possibly not to really care. Perhaps I sound like a whiny high schooler ("Waaah, am I normal? *Angst* *Angst* *Angst* Will a guy ever really LyKe Me 4 mE?), but I know there's no real normality except for the one I create. But I'm wondering if this uninterest in anyone romantically signifies that I am personally completely detached from human society. I realize how much of a problem my ideology possibly freaks out people (i.e. men who are afraid of smart women because it makes their male ego - and possibly other male parts - shrink). I remember a friend who said it is hard for her to date because she doesn't like to "play dumb". I think I know the strategy of the game, but I don't know if I can play by those rules.

In one sense I find it difficult to let go of my strongly held personal beliefs without losing a part of my personal integrity. I will be honest and say there's fear there too. These beliefs are also affecting my non-romantic relationships with friends. I can't even watch a movie without thinking about the "isms" involved (racism, sexism, blah blah). And I find that some people who might agree with me are too pretentious or friends think I am being too serious for my own good.

In another sense, I know I am not the norm. And I'm sure it's not helpful that I have a sarcastic and slightly cynical edge sometimes. I think I'm improving that though. At least I hope so.

I was watching "The Truth About Cats & Dogs" the other day. And while it is a good movie it still bothered me in some ways. Why does the intelligent, funny, charismatic girl with a good job have low self esteem? (I love Janeane Garofalo- she is amazing) Is it society that makes her that way? Do you have to fit into one of 2 categories- smart and so-so or beautiful and dumb? Why does the beautiful blonde attract so much male attention (I think Uma Thurman is lovely but is it just because she is tall and blonde that makes her stop traffic? Are men really blindsided by attraction like that?) ? Is it intelligence that makes women unattractive to men? Is being dumb, flighty, with a high pitched voice and giggles nourish the "protective" aspect of men? And in the end is male approval what women want?

I don't know where I stand. I know I could never be part of the latter, but I don't agree with how society treats the former. And in a world where women are getting more education and out numbering men in percentage of the population I feel like its increasingly difficult to find anyone even remotely acceptable (and, in turn, accepting). Guys who are nice are either a) in a relationship, b) gay, c) don't have enough social skills, d) not interested in me, or e) not interested in dating.

And I fall off the fluffy liberal cloud of idealism once again....

[rant warning]

Tomorrow is singularly one of the biggest events of the summer (probably year) in San Francisco. And unless you live in a cave- you know that event is the SF Pride festival.

Well I know this shouldn't be suprised how I feel right now...but whatever. I didn't realize until I had to seriously think about people's "comfort" level on whether or not they would be cool to go to the SF Pride festival. And this got me to thinking (and so did this by a friend of mine)....

I'm going to throw out a terms^[1]:

homophobia

means fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred of and disparagement of homosexual people, their lifestyles, their sexual behaviors, or cultures, and is generally used to assert bigotry. Opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds may also be referred to as homophobia.

and this one

Heterosexism

is a belief or argument that male-female sexuality is the only natural, normal, or moral mode of sexual behavior, and is also used to refer to the effects of that cultural ideology. The word 'heterosexualism' has also been proposed to mean essentially the same thing. This word has been suggested as an alternative to homophobia, in part because it uses a parallel structure to sexism or racism.

Heterosexism should not be confused with heterocentrism, which is an (often subconscious) assumption that everyone is heterosexual, and the attitudes associated with that assumption. Heterocentrism often shows up in unintentional ways in every day life. For instance, when a woman says she is going on a date, many people will ask, "What's his name?" or "Is he cute?" assuming it is a heterosexual date. Nevertheless, these people may not have anything against same-sex dating. In queer theory, the term heterocentrism is closely related to heteronormativity.

Yes I went there. I am calling certain people of my aquaintance "homophobic". Homophobia doesn't mean hanging out in a dark alley outside gay clubs and beating people within an inch of their life or of cross burning or whatever. Homophobia is "fear", "an aversion", or "discrimination". Ok so wanting not to go to Pride or associate oneself with anything "homosexual" is- I think- homophobia because last time I checked "aversion" meant avoidance of a thing because it makes one uncomfortable. A lot of my friends are college students and/or graduates. But again I am faced with the cold stark reality that not all are college students are created equal. What bothers me more is that this is something I've noticed about my friends and possibly people of color in general. There is a heterosexual norm going on here. No one really wants to talk about it, but in most minority groups it is assumed that if you are a man- you are heterosexual.

What I don't understand is why there is a line dividing at all. You would think that being oppressed by assumptions about race or ethnicity would make people a little more understanding to people who are oppressed in other ways. But noooooooooo. That is not the case.

What upsets me more is that I have not realized this about some people I know sooner. That I have been living a life of "heterosexual privilege". That I am afforded rights, privileges, confidences, friendships, and tolerance because I am heterosexual and not homosexual. I think that is what upsets me most- the disappointment of idealism. No, having a college education does not make you a more understanding person. Maybe it does, but only to that extent where it affects you personally. Like if you were a heterosexual person of color you wouldn't care about homosexual rights. Although I do not excuse people of no color either. I think the GLBTQ communities do tend to exclude people of color (this goes for "women's" issues too) and more could be done bridging these gaps.

I think they're all interconnected. The "isms", "ists", binaries. You expose one facet of the prejudiced and discriminatory nature of oppression when you expose another. In my world you can't close your eyes and pick and choose.


[1] From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

Mail Order Housewives: Philippines

Mail Order Housewives: Philippines
on iN DEMAND Pay Per View

I can't even process this right now. We were looking at the listings and I thought I was going crazy. It was bad enough on the internet- now its on tv. I am so angry I can't even think straight.


(click on the pictures if you want to see them full size. It took me a little to do it. Even though I knew what was coming)




How does one react to this? Write letters to comcast? OnDemand? The porn industry?!?!


This should not be allowed. How does anyone think this is OK? And it is really scary that the idea of Mail Order Brides have embedded themselves into popular (or at least porn/fetishist) culture so much so that they have a movie about it?! This shows how commonplace and how marketable human trade and trafficking is. And how people exploit others for money. People using the Filipina body as an idealized image of all that is desirable, "exotic"- all while at the same time degrading it to "suit your every need". I knew mail order bride internet sites existed, but the fact that it is now in a movie is a whole other level entirely. Moving pictures. Complete control of bodies in motion. Maybe I am overreacting (I think not), but I don't recall any mail order brides excuse me, housewives movies available on iN DEMAND recently.

I think its also interesting how they chose "Mail Order Housewife" instead of "bride". They have even removed the slight honor "bride" gives through marriage rites and instead chose "housewife" which implies that Filipinas are there as workers who take care of the home.

I don't know what to do. I want to do something. Possibly involving me throwing the tv out the window- but seeing as it's not my tv and I will have a very angry roommate...not really feasible. I can't believe things like this happen. I mean can you excuse the porn industry just because it feeds on the basest and most vile of human desires? I say you can. I say that people should speak up and demand that things like this- disgusting, degrading, horrible, upsetting - movies like this should not be available "on demand". It is enough that you have commodified marriage? Is it enough that this is promoting what I think should be stopped. Its completely appalling. Something should be done. But I don't know who to blame. Everyone. Anyone. I know this might not help too much, but I think at least a letter writing campaign against iN DEMAND or something like that.

*Note: I just found out on the iN DEMAND website that it's "premiere" is today and will be playing until July 16. This must be stopped.